Share:

Related

Reader Interactions

Comments

I’m struck by how none of the pastors reference the Baptist tradition of separation of church and state. Man, if Baptist seminarians aren’t reading Roger Williams, John Leland, Isaac Backus, along with an army of English dissenters, then what in the world are they teaching in church history courses!?

With the exception of his concept of “middle magistrates,” Calvin is not the fellow that evangelicals derive our modern view of political economy from. He burned a guy at the stake for preaching heresy, after all! His theocratic Geneva was indeed the basis of the Puritan civil/ecclesiastical union in Massachusetts, but the Puritans are a case study in why the separation of church and state are so vital. First Great Awakening evangelicals were huge proponents of disestablishment and their arguments for it apply today even as the specific issues change.

It’s an interesting question and one I am not sure of how American law works. I guess I have conducted one American wedding and was authorized to do so simply by my ordination. It doesn’t work that way here in Canada, you have to be approved by the provincial registry office. It also doesn’t work that way in Britain. My #2 son married a lovely young lady from Britain a year ago and various circumstances required a separate legal and church ceremony. The legal ceremony was two days before the church ceremony. They were legally married at that point, but continued as unmarried until the church ceremony. However, they would have had to have a legal divorce if they hadn’t had the church ceremony and broke it off…

In any case, my understanding is that two separate ceremonies is not unusual in European countries. Because of changes in the marriage laws, I am considering de-registering and requiring two ceremonies here.

Just to clarify, although I suppose it’s a bit off topic: Calvin never burned anyone at the stake, and it was not “his” theocratic Geneva. Calvin wasn’t even a citizen of Geneva until 1559 (Servetus was burned in 1553), and so could not take part in that city’s government. That’s not to say that he is free from all blame for the situation; I don’t believe he is. But we have to stop spreading half-truths and misunderstandings in regards to what happened there.

To mention something that is on topic: here in Mexico we have the civil ceremony and the religious ceremony separate also, which seems to work well.

I was engaging in a touch of hyperbole; no, Calvin didn’t set torch to kindling. But he was intimately involved in the execution of Servetus. It was his personal secretary, Nicholas de la Fontaine, who drew up the criminal (theological) charges against Servetus. Calvin himself favored Servetus’s execution, although he appealed to the city council to behead him instead of burning him at the stake.

As far as Calvin’s citizenship is concerned, you’re chasing a red herring. Calvin was, for lack of a better English term, the spiritual adviser for one prominent faction in Genevan politics. As that faction rose and fell, so too did Calvin’s influence in Genevan politics. Suffice it to say for our purposes that Calvin’s reform faction was the ruling party during the Servetus trial and execution. In the late-1540s, there was a groundswell of opposition to Calvin’s faction, stemming in large part from their heavyhanded rule. Take, for example, the story of Jacques Gruet, who was tortured and executed after leaving a blasphemous protest placard on Calvin’s pulpit. By early 1553, Calvin’s faction was losing its grasp on power, but the execution of Servetus won them political brownie points during a crucial period until securing a major political victory in 1555 (and executing several members of the defeated opposition).

The whole truth is that Calvin was a major figure in the Genevan church-city-state consistory that had a nasty habit of executing its ecclesiastical and political opponents. Again, he isn’t the guy that evangelicals really want to be imitating on matters of political economy.

I like Carson’s French idea of separating the legal and ecclesiastical weddings for a practical reason. If pastors refuse to sign the legal document that may keep them from being sued or worse when they refuse to do a gay wedding. They can say they don’t do any legal weddings, just ecclesiastical ones. And since the practicing homosexuals would not be permitted into the church, they can’t perform their ecclesiastical wedding. This seems to have a good chance of holding up in court.